JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') is convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code. He is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Said judgment was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No. 37/2009 and the appeal came to be dismissed by judgment dated 30-9-2010. Hence, the present revision. 2. Complainant Anandrao Wanjari was the President of Ganesh Shikshan Sanstha, Bhandara and accused Pundlik Vishvanath Bangadkar was the Secretary. There was meeting on 29-10-1992. Election of their society was held in that meeting. As per the complainant, accused filed change report by forging the signatures of the complainant, Devendra Gaikwad, Sau. Hiravati Panchabhai and Ragho Selokar. Accused also forged the signatures on consent letters. The record of the society was taken by accused. Complainant was demanding the record but accused avoided to handover, therefore, he suspected and went to the office of the Charity Commissioner. Then he found that accused had submitted change report showing newly elected body. In fact it was decided to continue old executive body, therefore, complainant filed objection before the Charity Commissioner. He went to the police station and lodged report about the forgery by accused Pundlik Bangadkar. Police not taken any cognizance of the offence. Crime was not registered by police. Therefore, Anandrao Wanjari filed Complaint Case No. 116/1996 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni. Charge was framed. Complainant examined himself and other five witnesses. Learned trial Court come to the conclusion that accused has forged signatures of the complainant, Devendra Gaikwad, Sau. Hiravati Panchabhai and Ragho Selokar. Crime was not registered by police. Therefore, Anandrao Wanjari filed Complaint Case No. 116/1996 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni. Charge was framed. Complainant examined himself and other five witnesses. Learned trial Court come to the conclusion that accused has forged signatures of the complainant, Devendra Gaikwad, Sau. Hiravati Panchabhai and Ragho Selokar. Relying on the oral evidence adduced by the complainant and handwriting expert (P.W. 6 Ulhas Athale) convicted the accused as stated above. The said judgment came to be confirmed by the Sessions Judge. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Dangre for the applicant. He has submitted that prosecution/complainant has not proved by cogent evidence that accused forged the signatures of complainant and other members. He has pointed out evidence of complainant Anandrao Wanjari and submitted that as per his admission, record of the society was with him from 29-10-1992 up to 21-2-1995. Change report is dated 29-4-1994. Therefore, it is clear that when change report was submitted, the record of the society was with the complainant. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that handwriting expert not obtained specimen signatures of the persons of disputed signatures and of the accused, therefore, his conclusion is faulty. He has pointed out cross-examination of handwriting expert Shri Ulhas Athale and submitted that he could not opine as to who had put signatures on Exhibit Nos. 133 and 134. At last, learned Advocate has submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that accused forged the signatures of complainant and other executive members. To prove the opinion of handwriting expert, careful scrutiny by the handwriting expert is required. In support of his submissions, he pointed out decision in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another reported in, (1992) 3 SCC 700 . 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Lonare for the State/non-applicant no. 1. He has supported the impugned judgments. 6. Heard learned Advocate Shri Sambre for the non-applicant no. 2. He has submitted that cross-examination by the side of accused shows that they have admitted that there was resolution on 29-10-1992 and there was no change of the executive body. Accused himself submitted change report showing the newly elected body. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly observed about the admission. Learned Advocate has submitted that handwriting expert proved that disputed signatures were not made by the makers and those signatures were forged. Accused himself submitted change report showing the newly elected body. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly observed about the admission. Learned Advocate has submitted that handwriting expert proved that disputed signatures were not made by the makers and those signatures were forged. Learned counsel has submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very limited, therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. There is no dispute that the revisional jurisdiction is limited. The revisional Court has to see whether there is any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. If the perversity or illegality is found after verifying the record, then certainly this Court can set aside the impugned judgment. 8. It is the case of the complainant that meeting of education society was held on 29-10-1992. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, in the said meeting, it was decided that old executive body should continue. It was written in the proceedings book and members present there signed on it. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, he kept all the record of the society in his custody from 29-10-1992. He had given the said record to the Auditor Shri Funde on 21-2-1995. Thereafter accused taken the record on 16-6-1995. He went to Shri Funde. Then he came to know that accused taken the record. He demanded the said record from accused no. 1 but he avoided. He suspected the accused no. 1, therefore, he went to the office of Charity Commissioner, Bhandara and lodged the complaint on 24-11-1995. After verifying the record of Charity Commissioner, he came to know that his signature along with the signatures of Devendra Gaikwad, Sau. Hiravati Panchabhai and one Selokar were forged and accused submitted change report. Therefore, they approached to handwriting expert. Handwriting expert taken the photographs of signatures of record and told them that those signatures were forged and therefore, he lodged the report. Cognizance was not taken by police, therefore, complaint was filed. 9. The question arise as to whether the accused was in possession of record of the society on 29-4-1994. The change report was submitted by accused on 29-4-1994 in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara. Along with the change report, he has submitted copy of proceedings book dated 29-10-1992 along with consent letters, Exhibit 133 and Exhibit 134. The change report is at Exhibit 135. The change report was submitted by accused on 29-4-1994 in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara. Along with the change report, he has submitted copy of proceedings book dated 29-10-1992 along with consent letters, Exhibit 133 and Exhibit 134. The change report is at Exhibit 135. Consent letters show the signatures of executive body. 10. The complainant not explained as to how the accused produced the said documents i.e. resolution in respect of election dated 29-10-1992. The complainant himself has admitted in his evidence that all the record of the society was with him from 29-10-1992 up to 21-2-1995. 11. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have only stated that accused forged the signatures but none of them have stated that how the accused persons forged their signatures. They had admitted in their cross-examination that they did not saw the accused while making signatures on Exhibit 133 and Exhibit 134 (disputed documents). 12. Evidence of P.W. 5 only shows that accused submitted change report in the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara on 29-4-1994. P.W. 6 Shri Ulhas Athale, handwriting expert has stated that he has not obtained specimen signatures of Anandrao Wanjari, Ragho Selokar, V. S. Panchabhai, Vishwanath Bangadkar, D. P. Gaikwad, Irawati Panchabhai and P. V. Bangadkar. He had shown documents, Exhibits 133 and 134. He has stated that he has taken photographs of signatures alleged to have been made by those persons. In the cross-examination, he has further admitted that he had not taken specimen signature of accused. His evidence shows that he has taken the signatures of the persons who disputed their signatures and of accused from the record. He had not taken personally specimen signature of any of the person. In his cross-examination, he has admitted as under :- "Comparative signatures are examined on the basis of record of the instant case. I was not having specimen of handwriting of all accused person. I have not obtained specimen signature of all accused persons. It is true I cannot opine as to who had put signatures on exh. nos. 133 & 134. in respect of the first six person mentioned in my report. The signatures shown in exh. no. 136 were not taken down in my presence." (emphasis supplied) Evidence on record do not show that accused is the only person and none else, forged the disputed signatures. nos. 133 & 134. in respect of the first six person mentioned in my report. The signatures shown in exh. no. 136 were not taken down in my presence." (emphasis supplied) Evidence on record do not show that accused is the only person and none else, forged the disputed signatures. The evidence of expert witness Athale is not helpful to prove forgery by accused. 13. Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that accused gave some suggestion admitting the case of complainant. Learned trial Court also observed that the accused have admitted about election dated 29-10-1992 and there was no change of the executive body. It is pertinent to note that learned trial Court has not read the evidence as a whole. The answer given by the witnesses do not show that those were given to the suggestions made by the counsel of accused. Further suggestions show the denial on the part of accused about the evidence of witnesses. Therefore, that cannot be taken as a gospel truth that accused persons admitted the case of complainant. 14. The complainant has to prove by cogent evidence that accused is the person who has forged the signatures and submitted change report. Evidence of complainant in examination-in-chief itself shows that record of the society was with him from 29-10-1992 up to 21-2-1995. The change report and consent letters are dated 29-4-1994. Along with change report, resolution etc. were submitted. Then question arise as to how the accused was in possession of the record of the society when the fact is that all the record was with the President of the society (P.W. 1) from 29-10-1992 up to 21-2-1995. 15. The evidence of handwriting expert is not reliable because he has not taken personally specimen signatures of the persons of disputed signatures and all the accused. He had taken photographs of the signatures from the record. Therefore, his evidence is to be scrutinized very carefully. 16. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. 15. The evidence of handwriting expert is not reliable because he has not taken personally specimen signatures of the persons of disputed signatures and all the accused. He had taken photographs of the signatures from the record. Therefore, his evidence is to be scrutinized very carefully. 16. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdev Singh and another (cited supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "Evidence regarding the identity of the author of any document can be tendered (i) by examining the person who is conversant and familiar with the handwriting of such person or (ii) through the testimony of an expert who is qualified and competent to make a comparison of the disputed writing and the admitted writing on a scientific basis and (iii) by the court comparing the disputed document with the admitted one. A handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion evidence is recognised as relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act and has not been equated to the class of evidence of an accomplice. It would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. But the court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification of fingerprints; courts have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence. Since such opinion evidence cannot take the place of substantive evidence, courts have, as a rule of prudence, looked for corroboration before acting on such evidence. But that is not to say that it is a rule of prudence of general application regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the court has to decide in each case on its own merits what weight it should attach to the opinion of the expert. If there exist numerous striking peculiarities and mannerisms which stand out to identify the writer, the court can act on the expert's evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the court has to decide in each case on its own merits what weight it should attach to the opinion of the expert. If there exist numerous striking peculiarities and mannerisms which stand out to identify the writer, the court can act on the expert's evidence. However, before a court can act on the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert two things must be proved beyond any manner of doubt, namely, (i) the genuineness of the specimen/admitted handwriting of the concerned accused and (ii) the handwriting expert is a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires confidence. Prudence demands that before acting on such opinion the court should be fully satisfied about the authorship of the admitted writings which is made the sole basis for comparison and the court should also be fully satisfied about the competence and credibility of the handwriting expert. Though by nature and habit, over a period of time, each individual develops certain traits which give a distinct character to his writings making it possible to identify the author but since handwriting experts are generally engaged by one of the contesting parties, they consciously or unconsciously, tend to lean in favour of an opinion which is helpful to the party engaging him. Therefore, before a court can place reliance on the opinion of an expert, it must be shown that he has not betrayed any bias and the reasons on which he has based his opinion are convincing and satisfactory. It is, therefore, necessary to exercise extra care and caution in evaluating their opinion before accepting the same. In the present case the trial court found that the evidence on record in regard to the natural handwriting of the accused was not satisfactory and did not inspire confidence. The trial court also found that it was hazardous to rely on his evidence as he had betrayed bias against the accused and in favour of the prosecution as "he also belongs to the Police Department". On a consideration of the expert evidence it does not appear that the view taken by the trial court is unsustainable or perverse. The trial court also found that it was hazardous to rely on his evidence as he had betrayed bias against the accused and in favour of the prosecution as "he also belongs to the Police Department". On a consideration of the expert evidence it does not appear that the view taken by the trial court is unsustainable or perverse. Even otherwise having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence tendered and the quality of evidence of the expert the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt the so-called conspiracy." 17. Evidence of P. W. 6 Ulhas Athale shows that he has favoured the party who paid him. His evidence clearly shows that he could not give definite opinion that accused forged the disputed signatures of their makers. He has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot opine as to who had put signatures on disputed documents viz. Exhibit Nos. 133 and 134. This particular admission completely washed out the allegations against the accused. Learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court not read the evidence carefully and committed perversity. 18. There is no other evidence to show that accused is the person who made the disputed signatures. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 has specifically stated that in their presence, accused not made any signature. P.W. 3 has stated in his cross-examination that he did not know what is Schedule-A. The signatures on Exhibit 133 are not made in his presence, therefore, he cannot tell who had forged his signature at serial no. 2. They have stated that in the proceedings book, all they have made signatures. The proceedings book was in the custody of complainant from 29-10-1992 up to 21-2-1995 and change report was submitted on 29-4-1994. 19. The complainant has failed to establish that accused is the person who made forged signatures. Evidence of handwriting expert also shows that he could not give definite opinion that accused forged the signatures on disputed documents. Evidence of handwriting expert shows that he had not taken any specimen signatures and handwriting of accused. Generally, practice for the handwriting expert is to take the handwriting of accused persons and specimen signatures on disputed documents and after comparison of the handwriting etc. he should give the opinion. Evidence of handwriting expert shows that he had not taken any specimen signatures and handwriting of accused. Generally, practice for the handwriting expert is to take the handwriting of accused persons and specimen signatures on disputed documents and after comparison of the handwriting etc. he should give the opinion. But evidence of Ulhas Athale (P.W. 6) shows that he had taken photographs of the disputed signatures and signatures of accused from the record. He has not personally taken any specimen signatures or handwriting of accused. Therefore, handwriting expert could not definitely opine as to who forged the signatures on disputed documents, Exhibit Nos. 133 and 134. The specific admission of handwriting expert not taken into consideration by both the Courts below and thereby committed illegality. In that view of the matter, revision is liable to be allowed. Hence, following order. ORDER (i) Revision is allowed. (ii) Accused/applicant is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Accused/applicant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. (iv) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the accused/applicant. (v) R & P be sent back to the trial Court.